Research and developments is a blog for brief updates that provide a context for the burst of news concerning changes in law and politics that have an impact on science and scientists today.
The budget proposed by President Trump in 2026, published today, reduces non -defensive discretionary expenses of $ 163 billion, a reduction of 22.6% compared to 2025.
In the budget request, sent by Russell T. Vought, director of the management and budget office, to the president of the Senate credits, Susan Collins, Vought wrote that the suggestions came after a rigorous examination of the 2025 budget, which proved to be “tilted to finance non -governmental niche niche slots and institutions of American life.
Among The proposed cuts::
- A drop of 9.4%, or 4.7 billion dollars, at the Ministry of Energy
- In addition, the budget proposes to cancel “more than $ 15 billion in new green scam funds, committed to creating unreliable renewable energies, by removing air carbon dioxide and other expensive technologies and expensive technologies for taxpayers and consumers.”
- A decrease of 54%, or 5 billion dollars, to the environmental protection agency
- This includes the elimination of the EPA environmental justice program and the atmosphere protection program, as well as cutting funds for the superflost of dangerous substances and the state of clean and potable renewable water from loan funds.
- “Trump’s plan to eliminate practically federal funding for clean and safe water represents a malicious contempt for public health. Even according to the appalling standards of Trump, this direct attack on a reference water safety program is inadmissible,” said Executive Director of Food & Water Watch Wenonah Hauter a declaration.
- A drop of 30.5%, or 5.1 billion dollars, in the Interior Department, including 198 billion dollars from the Bureau of Land Management, $ 900 million from the National Park Service and $ 564 million in US Geological Survey
- According to the proposal: “eliminates programs that grant subsidies to universities, duplicate other federal research programs and focus on social agendas (for example, climate change) to focus rather on the domination of energy and critical minerals.”
- A drop of 24.3%, or 6 billion dollars, to NASA, including a 47% drop in the scientific budget
- Among many other cuts, the budget “eliminates the financing of climate surveillance satellites at low priority”, “reduced space technology by about half” and “putting an end to unaffordable missions such as the mission of return of samples Mars”. He suggests cutting the lunar gateway, the rocket of the space launch system and the Orion capsule, as well as the Office of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Commitment. NASA’s overall reduction takes into account an increase in the proposed budget of $ 647 million for human spatial exploration.
- In a declarationThe Planetary Society urged the congress to reject the proposed budget, calling it “a historic step back for American leadership in space sciences, in exploration and innovation”.
- In a statementThe American Astronomical Society expressed “serious concerns” on these cuts, and said: “This will derail not only the advanced scientific advances, but also the formation of the country’s future STEM labor.”
- A decrease of 55.8%, or 4.9 billion dollars, to the National Science Foundation
- According to the proposal: “The budget reduces funding for: the climate; clean energy; the awakened social, behavioral and economic sciences; and programs in scientific fields at low priority. NSF has fueled research with dubious public value, such as the speculative impacts of extreme climatic scenarios and niche social studies. ”
- A decrease of approximately 25%, or 1.5 billion dollars, at the Noaa
- According to the proposal: “the budget ends a variety of research programs, data and subsidies dominated by the climate, which are not aligned on the” Green New Deal “administration initiatives”.
The budget proposal also includes suggestions to increase defense expenses by 13%, to 1.01 dollars; And for “a historic investment of $ 175 billion to finally secure our border”.
– Emily Dieckman (@ emfurd.bsky.social), Deputy editor -in -chief
These updates are made possible thanks to information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy affect scientists or research? Send us a tip to (Protected by e-mail).
Text © 2025. AGU. CC by-NC-ND 3.0
Unless otherwise noted, the images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express authorization of the copyright holder is prohibited.
Related